BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

39 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Condonation of Delayclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai527Delhi351Kolkata315Ahmedabad256Chennai254Jaipur253Pune201Bangalore194Hyderabad174Surat145Indore133Karnataka120Chandigarh100Rajkot67Cochin66Amritsar52Nagpur50Lucknow45Cuttack43Visakhapatnam39Calcutta36Patna34Guwahati26Agra25Raipur22Panaji17Allahabad14Jabalpur13Ranchi11Dehradun9Jodhpur7SC5Varanasi2Telangana1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)32Section 14731Condonation of Delay28Penalty24Section 14820Section 142(1)17Section 143(3)16Addition to Income16Section 143(2)

SRI SURYA ANJANEYA INDUSTRIES,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Sri Surya Anjaneya Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Industries, D.No. 108/12, Vizianagaram. Opp.Fire Station, K.L.Puram, Cheepurupalli, Vizianagaram. Pan No. Abgfs 0809 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao– Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dt.26.09.2014. The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty order but there was a delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered that the delay was on account of critical illness of the spouse of the managing partner and adjudicated the appeal. He noticed

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

13
Section 234E12
Cash Deposit11
Section 271D10

GADDE KISHNA,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 367/VIZ/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay is condoned. (Gadde Kishan & Another) For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 4. 367/VIZ/2019. The assessee is an individual, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs.55,300/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

GADDE HARI PRASADA RAO,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 368/VIZ/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay is condoned. (Gadde Kishan & Another) For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from ITA No. 4. 367/VIZ/2019. The assessee is an individual, filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs.55,300/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE ARYAPURAM COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the C

ITA 239/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleacit, Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S. The Aryapuram Rajamahendravaram. Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., D.No. 20-23-8, Aryapuram, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Aaatt 8099 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking, filed its return of income by declaring total income of Rs.81,02,582/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , VISKAHAPATNAM vs. SRI VIJAYA VISAKHA MILK PRODUCERS COMPANY LIMITED,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively, with the delay of 9 days. The revenue filed petition for condonation of delay and submitted that the appeals against the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 14.08.2020 received by the revenue authorities on 24.09.2020, which ought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VENKATA SITA RAMACHANDRA RAO KANCHUMARTHY, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Venkata Sita Ramachandra Rao Kanchumarty International Taxation, Circle H.No. 26-22-16 Ground Floor, Infinity Tower Near Chinna Anjaneya Swamy Temple Sankarmattam Road Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry Visakhapatnam – 530016 East Godavari District – 533103 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Edzpk3519Q]

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

u/s 148 shows that the assessee's intention is to escape tax? 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the CIT(Appeals) is justified in ignoring the fact that mens rea or intention of assessee has no relevance in civil penalties as laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dharmendra Textile

SAMIULLAH KHAN,,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX, WARD-1(2), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.68/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sri Samiullah Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop : Shabnam Steels Ward-1(2) D.No.12-13-4, A.K.Street Vijayawada Islampet, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Ajzpk4150F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.Madhusudan, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri M.Madhusudan, ARFor Respondent: Smt Suman Malik, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

delay is condoned. 3. In this case, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.13,17,360/- and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on total income of Rs.33,33,300/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO made the addition of Rs.16,42,750/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained creditors

THE ITO (TDS), RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S. OM SAI RAM, ENTERPRISES,, MANDAPETA

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 152/VIZ/2016[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.152/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer (Tds) Vs. M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Tds Ward-1 Ravulapalem Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaao2649G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.70/Viz/2018 Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.152/Viz/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Ravulapalem Tds Ward-1 Rajahmundry [Pan : Aaao2649G] रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2019 20.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194C(1)Section 201(1)Section 271C

penalty as levied u/s 271-C.” 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue took up the matter before the High Court of Delhi against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court rejected the appeal only on the ground that no substantial question of law arises in the matter. 4. On facts, we are convinced that there

BOLLINA SIVARAMA KRISHNA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 28/VIZ/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.28/Viz/2022 & 30/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Bollina Sivarama Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.78-15-5 Ward-2(1) G-1, Rk Towers Rajahmundry Sastry Hospital Road Rajahmundry [Pan : Aiupb4182C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri On Hari Prasad Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Rajamahendravaram In Ita No.10005/2018-19/Cit(A)/Rjy & 10151/2017-18/Cit(A)/Rjy Dated 12.12.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 With The Delay Of 735 Days. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Was Passed On 12.12.2019, As 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasad Rao, DR

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 6 I.T.A. No.28/Viz/2022 & 30/Viz/2022, A.Y.2014-15 Bollina Sivarama Krishna, Rajahmundry 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits and ought to have deleted the penalty of Rs.10,79,350/- levied by the assessing officer u/s 271

SRI SURYATEJA CONSTRUCTIONS,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 124/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide the order dated 13/09/2022. Against the penalty order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC with a delay of 103 days. 7 11. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine

SRI SURYATEJA CONSTRUCTIONS,VIJAYAWADA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE - 2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 123/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide the order dated 13/09/2022. Against the penalty order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC with a delay of 103 days. 7 11. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative [“Ld. AR”] submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUNTUR vs. SILEMANKHAN & MAHABOOBKHAN, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 571/VIZ/2019[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.571/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Silemankhan & Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.149/Viz/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.571/Viz/2019) (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) M/S Silemankhan & Vs. Deputy.Commissioner Of Mahaboobkhan Income Tax D.No.15-11-16 Central Circle-2 Mangalagiri Road Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaifs2791N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CA, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271A

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,-- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

VIJAYA DURGA PENUMALA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 249/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for the AY 2016-17. 2 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drew our attention

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKRTING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 271/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining the reasons for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit and sought for condonation

GIRIJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 272/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining the reasons for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit and sought for condonation

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 273/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining the reasons for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit and sought for condonation

GIRJAN CO-OP MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 274/VIZ/2024[2016-17S]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c), 271B and 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) belatedly with a delay of 481 days. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made submissions explaining the reasons for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit and sought for condonation

KOSANAM RAMA RAO,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 226/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

condone the delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 10. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. Before proceeding

NARAYANA REDDY ENTERPRISES,,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, KAKINADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blem/S. Narayana Reddy Enterprises, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, D.No. 34-16-38, Cinema Road, Kakinada. Mandapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Pan No. Aabfn 8259 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also passed and was received by the appellant on 31.03.2018. The managing partner consulted his auditor for filing the appeal against the penalty order. During the discussion, the managing partner was asked about the status of appeal filed against the original assessment order. The managing partner verified and came to know that

APPARAO MUTCHAKARLA,VIZAG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIZAG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 4/VIZ/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.04/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Apparao Mutchakarla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vizag. Income Tax, Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for the AY 2007-08. 2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. AR drawn our attention